I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al

Filing 312

MOTION to Seal Exhibit 3 to the Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff I/P Engine's First Motion in Limine to Exclude Inadmissible Evidence by I/P Engine, Inc.. (Sherwood, Jeffrey)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA NORFOLK DIVISION __________________________________________ ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) AOL, INC. et al., ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________) I/P ENGINE, INC., Civ. Action No. 2:11-cv-512 MOTION TO SEAL EXHIBIT 3 TO THE MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF I/P ENGINE’S FIRST MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE Pursuant to Local Rule 5 and the Agreed Protective Order entered by the Court [Dkt. No. 85], Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc. (“I/P Engine”) respectfully moves this Court for entry of the attached Order permitting Plaintiff to file under seal Exhibit 3 to its Memorandum in Support of its First Motion in Limine to Exclude Inadmissible Evidence. Grounds and authorities for this Motion are set forth in I/P Engine’s Memorandum in Support of Motion to Seal. In compliance with Local Rule 5, I/P Engine attaches a Proposed Agreed Order as Exhibit 1 and is filing separately a Public Notice of I/P Engine’s Motion to Seal. I/P Engine requests that the Court retain sealed materials until DSMDB-3100039 forty-five (45) days after a final order is entered and request that, unless the case is appealed, any sealed materials be returned to counsel for the filing parties. The parties have agreed that confidential materials should be filed under seal. Dated: September 21, 2012 By: /s/ Jeffrey K. Sherwood Donald C. Schultz (Virginia Bar No. 30531) W. Ryan Snow (Virginia Bar No. 47423) CRENSHAW, WARE & MARTIN PLC 150 West Main Street Norfolk, VA 23510 Telephone: (757) 623-3000 Facsimile: (757) 623-5735 Jeffrey K. Sherwood (Virginia Bar No. 19222) Frank C. Cimino, Jr. Kenneth W. Brothers DeAnna Allen Charles J. Monterio, Jr. DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP 1825 Eye Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 420-2200 Facsimile: (202) 420-2201 Counsel for Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc. 2 DSMDB-3100039 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 21st day of September, 2012, the foregoing MOTION TO SEAL EXHIBIT 3 TO THE MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF I/P ENGINE’S FIRST MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE, was served via the Court’s CM/ECF system, on the following: Stephen Edward Noona Kaufman & Canoles, P.C. 150 W Main St Suite 2100 Norfolk, VA 23510 senoona@kaufcan.com David Bilsker David Perlson Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP 50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 davidbilsker@quinnemanuel.com davidperlson@quinnemanuel.com Robert L. Burns Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Two Freedom Square 11955 Freedom Drive Reston, VA 20190 robert.burns@finnegan.com Cortney S. Alexander Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP 3500 SunTrust Plaza 303 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 94111 cortney.alexander@finnegan.com /s/ Jeffrey K. Sherwood 3 DSMDB-3100039 EXHIBIT 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA NORFOLK DIVISION __________________________________________ ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) AOL, INC. et al., ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________) I/P ENGINE, INC., Civ. Action No. 2:11-cv-512 [PROPOSED] AGREED ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.’s (“I/P Engine”) Motion to Seal its Opposition to Google and IAC’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Supplement its Infringement Contentions along with Exhibits 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 21, and 22 in support. After considering the Motion to Seal, Order and related filings, the Court is of the opinion that the Motion to Seal should be granted. It is therefore ORDERED as follows: 1. Opposition to Google and IAC’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Supplement its Infringement Contentions along with Exhibits 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 21, and 22 in support. 2. There are three requirements for sealing court filings: (1) public notice with an opportunity to object; (2) consideration of less drastic alternatives; and (3) a statement of specific findings in support of a decision to seal and rejecting alternatives to sealing. See, e.g., Flexible Benefits Council v. Feldman, No. 1:08-CV-371, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93039 (E.D. Va. Nov. 13, 2008) (citing Ashcroft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 282, 288 (4th Cir. 2000)). This Court finds 4 DSMDB-3100039 that I/P Engine’s Opposition to Google and IAC’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Supplement its Infringement Contentions along with Exhibits 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 21, and 22 in support may contain data that is confidential under the Protective Order entered in this matter on January 23, 2012; that public notice has been given, that no objections have been filed; that the public’s interest in access is outweighed by the interests in preserving such confidentiality; and that there are no alternatives that appropriately serve these interests. 3. For the sake of consistency with practices governing the case as a whole, I/P Engine’s Opposition to Google and IAC’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Supplement its Infringement Contentions along with Exhibits 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 21, and 22 in support shall remain sealed and be treated in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Protective Order. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal is granted and I/P Engine is permitted to file under seal its Opposition to Google and IAC’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Supplement its Infringement Contentions along with Exhibits 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 21, and 22 in support. The Court shall retain sealed materials until forty-five (45) days after entry of a final order. If the case is not appealed, any sealed materials should then be returned to counsel for the filing party. Dated: April ___, 2012 Entered: ____/____/____ __________________________ United States District Court Eastern District of Virginia 5 DSMDB-3100039